Digital/slide film.....
Discussion
6x7 has MASSES more quality... But as soon as you scan it in the problem arises. Even with TOP notch scanning (£8 per photo) I never achieved the digital quality I get straight from the camera with the D2X.
Positive or Negative 6x7 are way ahead of digital... but unless you want to make a large print or sit in front of a projector it's all a bit irrelevant.
This is why film is as dead as a dodo.
IMHO of course... and I was wrong about England winning the world cup. They did and I lost a tanner.
edited to add... from another thread... this is about 25% pixel size and squashed to 10% of its file size - I never got this quality on screen from the film based Hassleblad: www.stevecarter.com/1920x1200Butte (1.7mb)
Positive or Negative 6x7 are way ahead of digital... but unless you want to make a large print or sit in front of a projector it's all a bit irrelevant.
This is why film is as dead as a dodo.
IMHO of course... and I was wrong about England winning the world cup. They did and I lost a tanner.
edited to add... from another thread... this is about 25% pixel size and squashed to 10% of its file size - I never got this quality on screen from the film based Hassleblad: www.stevecarter.com/1920x1200Butte (1.7mb)
Edited by GetCarter on Friday 14th July 16:02
compare that to the top spec film camera's of their time which were about £1k. 
Ah, the age old question about whether film is better than digital...
Well, in my view, there are several different aspects to consider, other than just image quality, and even then that is subjective.
Firstly, digital is much cheaper once you've purchased the kit. I've taken 8000+ images on my DSLR, which would have cost me £1600 in film and processing costs alone if I was using 35mm film, and these costs would be higher still if I was shooting medium format.
Secondly, you get the images immediately, and can check that you've got the shot that you want straight away - saving both time and money.
Thirdly, you really need to consider like for like, which is difficult to do when comparing film and digital. As Steve says, as soon as you scan film in, you lose quality which takes away some of it's advantage. If you don't want to scan, you're limited in what you can do with it, and printing the images becomes less straightforward.
Fourthly, a 35mm DSLR is generally smaller, lighter and has a larger range of lenses and accessories available to it, so can be used for pretty much any type of photography, whereas a M/F camera would not be so handy if you wanted to take motor racing photos for example.
As a rule of thumb, various reviews and tests seem to agree that a top end DSLR like the Canon 1DS II is equal in quality to scanned medium format, however digital medium format is better still, which in turn is then beaten by large format film (5"x4"
. Then of course, you start looking at digital scanning backs and 10"x8" film, and it goes on and on!
It really depends on what you want to achieve, and how important ultimate quality is to you. If I wanted the best quality that I could get, I'd take every shot on my large format camera, but it's totally impractical for most of the shots I take, and would cost a fortune (those same 8000 shots on my DSLR would have set me back about £56,000!!!).
I like the results I get from my DSLR, but you still can't beat looking at a well exposed slide on a light box
Well, in my view, there are several different aspects to consider, other than just image quality, and even then that is subjective.
Firstly, digital is much cheaper once you've purchased the kit. I've taken 8000+ images on my DSLR, which would have cost me £1600 in film and processing costs alone if I was using 35mm film, and these costs would be higher still if I was shooting medium format.
Secondly, you get the images immediately, and can check that you've got the shot that you want straight away - saving both time and money.
Thirdly, you really need to consider like for like, which is difficult to do when comparing film and digital. As Steve says, as soon as you scan film in, you lose quality which takes away some of it's advantage. If you don't want to scan, you're limited in what you can do with it, and printing the images becomes less straightforward.
Fourthly, a 35mm DSLR is generally smaller, lighter and has a larger range of lenses and accessories available to it, so can be used for pretty much any type of photography, whereas a M/F camera would not be so handy if you wanted to take motor racing photos for example.
As a rule of thumb, various reviews and tests seem to agree that a top end DSLR like the Canon 1DS II is equal in quality to scanned medium format, however digital medium format is better still, which in turn is then beaten by large format film (5"x4"
. Then of course, you start looking at digital scanning backs and 10"x8" film, and it goes on and on! It really depends on what you want to achieve, and how important ultimate quality is to you. If I wanted the best quality that I could get, I'd take every shot on my large format camera, but it's totally impractical for most of the shots I take, and would cost a fortune (those same 8000 shots on my DSLR would have set me back about £56,000!!!).
I like the results I get from my DSLR, but you still can't beat looking at a well exposed slide on a light box
davidd said:
It is a fair point but I suspect that within a couple of years the quality of a £1000 DSLR will be outstanding. It is just annoying that it is not here now.
D
They are pretty good already. The Canon 5D is probably one of the best around, and can be picked up for just over £1500.D
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff